On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
This is a rather nasty hack, though. If we can make it work, we should
probably try using --sysroot instead, or alternatively, -nostdinc and
adding include dirs by hand. The same for executable and library search
paths, although I am not sure if there is a way to completely reset those
with the current options.
I'm pretty sure that the origins of this hack pre-dates the -sysroot feature
in gcc. It works in -current and has for years, so nobody has cared enough
to even contemplate changing it.
If you can make the sysroot feature work, that would be great, since that
would allow us to skip the compiler building phase if we were building using
external compilers. I have some patches to make that work, but this very
problem is what I'd worked my way up to. It works well if you are building
current on current, but not so well if you are mixing versions (you can mix
architectures if you are using the xdev feature I put in a while ago, but
even that has one or two niggles I need to iron out).
Count me as another eager consumer awaiting a nice answer to the general
cross-compile problem. I'm really looking for three things:
(1) A bit more intelligence from our build framework regarding not rebuilding
the toolchain quite so many times! I'd like to be able to do a buildworld
with TARGET_ARCH with significantly improved performance. Perhaps we can
do this already, in which case a pointer considered welcome.
(2) Working clang/LLVM cross-compile of FreeBSD. This seems like a basic
requirement to adopt clang/LLVM, and as far as I'm aware that's not yet a
resolved issue?
(3) Making it easy to plug in, first, an external gcc easily, and second, an
external clang/LLVM. One worrying point for me on the last one is that we
can't yet build the whole kernel with clang/LLVM, at least for i386/amd64,
so I guess you need both external gcc *and* external clang/LLVM?
We (Cambridge) are currently bringing up FreeBSD on a new soft-core 64-bit
MIPS platform. We're already using a non-base gcc for our boot loader work,
and plan to move to using clang/LLVM later in the year. The base system seems
a bit short on detail when it comes to the above, currently.
Robert
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
